I have a lot of friends and family who've taught in inner city schools from Cleveland to Lorain, Columbus, and Boston.  What Cleveland17 is saying matches exactly what they tell me.  A big thing as well is the parents who only ever show up to yell at the teacher when their little brat gets in trouble, and the administration seldom backs up the teachers.

On which thread to we get to discuss the edicts of Judge Frank J. Battisti?  I didn't live in the Cleveland area when he did his thing.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Battisti

I have a sister who teaches in Compton and she has made mention of the irate and irrational 'parents' she has to deal with...... yelling at her that "my son can say whatever he da#% well wants!"

 

So then what can be done to make the administration more responsive?  We spend all of this time bad-mouthing the teachers unions.  Maybe it is time we look at the other side of the bargaining table for a massive reform in the way things work?

^LIKE

Side note:  It's weird to see and hear Barbara Byrd Bennett on TV and on the radio here in Chicago now.  They really have high hopes for her and CPS.

Why is no one speaking of the charter schools? The good ones are quite successful.  They have a very disciplined and rigorous program. They require parent support and the teachers even visit the student's homes.  As a result, they are on par with the top state schools. The teachers put in around 60 hours a week (I know because many of my friends work at various charters throughout the city).

Why is no one speaking of the charter schools? The good ones are quite successful.  They have a very disciplined and rigorous program. They require parent support and the teachers even visit the student's homes.  As a result, they are on par with the top state schools. The teachers put in around 60 hours a week (I know because many of my friends work at various charters throughout the city).

 

They also:

 

-Have a cherry-picked student enrollment and can freely boot out those that don't comply with their rules. 

-Do not pay or treat teachers like true professionals.

-Have mixed results, but as studies have shown on the whole do no better than public schools.

 

Charter schools, generally speaking, aren't doing anything special.  While they were originally created to be laboratories of innovation, nowadays they've mostly become little more than another way for corporations to extract more money from the public (see White Hat Management and their ilk).  IMO charter schools haven't proven to be necessary and they bring almost nothing to the table that a good magnet school system could not replicate.

On which thread to we get to discuss the edicts of Judge Frank J. Battisti?  I didn't live in the Cleveland area when he did his thing.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Battisti

Doing it here might bring on the wrath of the moderators.  Especially if I'd say what I have to say.  :evil:

...  While (charter schools) were originally created to be laboratories of innovation, nowadays they've mostly become little more than another way for corporations to extract more money from the public (see White Hat Management and their ilk).  IMO charter schools haven't proven to be necessary and they bring almost nothing to the table that a good magnet school system could not replicate.

Education is being directed by people without education credentials.  Charter schools were promoted in Ohio and Wisconsin by fake grassroots movements funded by the Bradley Foundation and other RWers. 

Having the teachers enforce discipline "internally" without the full and immediate backing of the administration, police, and whoever-it-takes is a classic case of "it always sounds easy to those who don't have to do it".  In many cases, we're not talking about mouthy seven year olds, here.

 

As for "zero tolerance", it ultimately amounts to zero need for judgement.  It requires both kids be punished equally, regardless of their previous history.

Why is no one speaking of the charter schools? The good ones are quite successful.  They have a very disciplined and rigorous program. They require parent support and the teachers even visit the student's homes.  As a result, they are on par with the top state schools. The teachers put in around 60 hours a week (I know because many of my friends work at various charters throughout the city).

 

Are you implying that charter school teachers work harder and longer hours than public school teachers?

 

I have friends who send there kids to charter schools and most are happy.  I encourage charter school as an option.  But I fret the butterfly effect which may ensue.  More and more "involved" parents are sending their kids to charter schools, not because those schools are inherently better, but because it means their kids will be going to school with children of other "involved" parents.  It removes those parents/kids from the public schools and consequently weakens the make-up of those public schools. 

 

The other potential consequence is that charter schools completely replace the public school system.  Proponents of such an outcome advocate for a 'voucher' system so that parents can have school "choice."  But here's what I see occuring.  Parents would be granted a voucher for maybe $12,000/yr.  They get to shop around.  The best charter schools will cost $30,000/yr.  If the parents "choose" to spend the extra out of pocket $$, then they can "choose" to send their kids to that school.  Those schools would then have the extra money to buy the best facilities and hire the best teachers.  Extra-curriculurs galore, as well.  2nd-tier charter schools would cost $20,000/yr.  Not as much of a bite out of your pocket, but still a healthy sum you would have to come up with.  The teachers and facilities would be good, but would be limited to those who couldn't get hired by the top-tier schools.  This would continue all the way down to the bottom tier schools which would cost $12,000/yr, would struggle to hire and retain faculty year after year, would not have the money to properly maintain the buildings, and would not be able to offer any extra-curriculurs.  The bottom tier schools would be flooded with students of "not involved" parents who won't or can't spend an extra dime to help get their kids a better education.  This is how the private sector works.  Rich people can and do buy the better products the poor just can't afford.

Better to save the ones we can rather than allow the bad ones to ruin it for everybody (the status quo for many many many public schools). Of course charters aren't perfect, but at least it gives the stable kids a shot at a real education.

Better to save the ones we can rather than allow the bad ones to ruin it for everybody (the status quo for many many many public schools). Of course charters aren't perfect, but at least it gives the stable kids a shot at a real education.

 

But are they really necessary?  If CSMD created a system that separated the students with active parents and those that aren't causing problems from those that aren't interested in learning, wouldn't the same ends, for the most part, be achieved?  Charter schools in urban districts lead to re-segregation (not necessarily along racial lines), but give those that allow them to exist and those that operate them political cover.

 

Also, while it's true that charter schools usually require more contract hours of their teachers, it's debatable whether charter school teachers work any harder than their peers in public schools. 

....  Parents would be granted a voucher for maybe $12,000/yr.  They get to shop around.  The best charter schools will cost $30,000/yr.  If the parents "choose" to spend the extra out of pocket $$, then they can "choose" to send their kids to that school.  Those schools would then have the extra money to buy the best facilities and hire the best teachers.  Extra-curriculurs galore, as well.  2nd-tier charter schools would cost $20,000/yr.  Not as much of a bite out of your pocket, but still a healthy sum you would have to come up with.  ...

Parents who would have been sending their children to private schools get a $12,000 subsidy from my taxes.  Good reason to leave Ohio

....  Parents would be granted a voucher for maybe $12,000/yr.  They get to shop around.  The best charter schools will cost $30,000/yr.  If the parents "choose" to spend the extra out of pocket $$, then they can "choose" to send their kids to that school.  Those schools would then have the extra money to buy the best facilities and hire the best teachers.  Extra-curriculurs galore, as well.  2nd-tier charter schools would cost $20,000/yr.  Not as much of a bite out of your pocket, but still a healthy sum you would have to come up with.  ...

Parents who would have been sending their children to private schools get a $12,000 subsidy from my taxes.  Good reason to leave Ohio

 

Huh?

Parents who *already* would have been sending their children to private schools get a $12,000 subsidy from my taxes. Ok?

Parents who *already* would have been sending their children to private schools get a $12,000 subsidy from my taxes. Ok?

 

Oh okay, yeah I'd take issue with that, too.  Any voucher system should be means-tested and I also don't believe that the voucher should be worth anywhere near as much as the per pupil expenditure of the local district.  That way if a student/family does choose to leave a school, the school isn't taking a huge hit, and in a way may even benefit from having one less student.  The voucher should probably be closer to the marginal cost of educating one student.

As Hts121 said, a voucher system has only one purpose, and that's to ensure that public schools cease to exist, and that quality of education is solely determined by level of wealth.  We have always determined that a good education is something that every child deserves.  We need to try harder to achieve that goal, not run the opposite direction from it.

As Hts121 said, a voucher system has only one purpose, and that's to ensure that public schools cease to exist, and that quality of education is solely determined by level of wealth.  We have always determined that a good education is something that every child deserves.  We need to try harder to achieve that goal, not run the opposite direction from it.

 

Huh?  I'd say that *not* having a voucher system makes the level of education more wealth-based.  Ever hear the late Fannie Lewis on the subject?  The most leftist member of the Clevleand City Council in her day, and the voucher opponents were absolutely petrified to debate her.

 

Even the "West Wing" used the vouchers issue as one of their occasional efforts to provide balance by boosting a conservative viewpoint.

The vouchers are funded from the state wide education budget, not local property taxes.  Hence, my income taxes are taken to fund this subsidy to private corporations.

As Hts121 said, a voucher system has only one purpose, and that's to ensure that public schools cease to exist, and that quality of education is solely determined by level of wealth.  We have always determined that a good education is something that every child deserves.  We need to try harder to achieve that goal, not run the opposite direction from it.

 

Huh?  I'd say that *not* having a voucher system makes the level of education more wealth-based.  Ever hear the late Fannie Lewis on the subject?  The most leftist member of the Clevleand City Council in her day, and the voucher opponents were absolutely petrified to debate her.

 

Even the "West Wing" used the vouchers issue as one of their occasional efforts to provide balance by boosting a conservative viewpoint.

 

Fannie Lewis was determined to make Cleveland into a suburb of itself, and getting kids out of city schools was a key piece of that approach.  She may have been leftist, but she was also as anti-urban as they come.

 

Education should not be for-profit.  I loved the idea when I was younger, and conservative, but in practice it often results in people getting rich at the expense of students and teachers.  A friend of mine used to audit charter schools for a living.  He said some were good, others awful, about an equal quantity each way.  But in any case, the dollars going to profit were simply removed from the education side.  Nothing justifies that.

Choice matters, whether it's choosing where to shop, where to live, or where to send your kids to school.  no voucher, no choice, no incentive for schools to offer more.  While some students at the bottom might be hurt by the voucher system, what about all the kids it would help?  How many bright aspiring students are being held back by lack of choice for a better option than Cleveland public schools?

De-funding the public schools hardly seems to enhance choice.  What's to offer?  It's education.  It offers whatever we pay for.  Or less than we pay for, if profit comes off the top.  Do we worry about incentive structures for the firefighters?  No, they do an important job and they need sufficient funding to get it done.  The answer to "there aren't enough cops in Cleveland, while Brecksville has tons of them" is not for everybody to leave Cleveland.

Huh?  I'd say that *not* having a voucher system makes the level of education more wealth-based.  Ever hear the late Fannie Lewis on the subject?  The most leftist member of the Clevleand City Council in her day, and the voucher opponents were absolutely petrified to debate her.

 

Even the "West Wing" used the vouchers issue as one of their occasional efforts to provide balance by boosting a conservative viewpoint.

 

Look, no matter what system is used, the wealthiest 10-15% are always going to have the resources to buy their kids' way into a school that is segregated from the plebs.  That will never change and the distribution of vouchers to everyone regardless of means (which would be the absolute worst way to do it, IMO) would only serve to make the most expensive private schools even more expensive.  So any idea of passing out vouchers so CMSD families can attend Laurel or University School is just unrealistic.  Heck I'm pretty sure that even with Catholic schools like St. Ignatius and Benedictine, even though they take students using vouchers, the vouchers don't cover full tuition.

 

I'll say the same thing about vouchers that I said about charter schools.  If we have a robust public school system that includes plentiful magnet school choices (including ones that cater to high-achievers and ones that exist to work with the biggest problem students), there's no need for vouchers.  IMO, one of the public school system's biggest problems (and this is not just CMSD, but nationally) has been trying to shove too many kids into one-size-fits all comprehensive schools, particularly at the secondary level.  There is a place for neighborhood schools, especially for K-6 or K-8, but when kids get older their families need some educational options to help get them more on track for what comes after K-12.

Choice matters, whether it's choosing where to shop, where to live, or where to send your kids to school.  no voucher, no choice, no incentive for schools to offer more.  While some students at the bottom might be hurt by the voucher system, what about all the kids it would help?  How many bright aspiring students are being held back by lack of choice for a better option than Cleveland public schools?

 

CMSD does need more options (as I mentioned above), but if/when these options become available, that does not mean that parents can simply drop their kids off at the door and expect a miracle based on being in a new or better school.  That's the problem here that is not being addressed.  You can shuffle kids around, parents can have more choices (including charters), but outcomes won't improve significantly until we find ways to get more parents to buy in to their child's education and to encourage them to achieve.

De-funding the public schools hardly seems to enhance choice.  What's to offer?  It's education.  It offers whatever we pay for.  Or less than we pay for, if profit comes off the top.  Do we worry about incentive structures for the firefighters?  No, they do an important job and they need sufficient funding to get it done.  The answer to "there aren't enough cops in Cleveland, while Brecksville has tons of them" is not for everybody to leave Cleveland.

 

I don't say this to advocate one position or the other, but I thought that in Ohio, charter schools didn't effectively de-fund the public schools.  More precisely, state funds are redirected from public schools to charter schools (i.e., they follow the students), but all local property tax income stays with the district.  So in effect, per pupil revenue for the remaining students in the district actually rises when a formerly district-enrolled student leaves for a charter school. I thought this was the compromise that was struck to get charter schools off the ground in the first place. Is this not so?

I believe you're correct, but the public school still ends up with less revenue to cover the same overhead.

Choice matters, whether it's choosing where to shop, where to live, or where to send your kids to school.  no voucher, no choice, no incentive for schools to offer more.  While some students at the bottom might be hurt by the voucher system, what about all the kids it would help?  How many bright aspiring students are being held back by lack of choice for a better option than Cleveland public schools?

 

CMSD does need more options (as I mentioned above), but if/when these options become available, that does not mean that parents can simply drop their kids off at the door and expect a miracle based on being in a new or better school.  That's the problem here that is not being addressed.  You can shuffle kids around, parents can have more choices (including charters), but outcomes won't improve significantly until we find ways to get more parents to buy in to their child's education and to encourage them to achieve.

 

Options?  How many more "options" do they need?  The CSD has several innovative schools.  Many more than when my father attended Glenville or my cousins were at Glenville, JFK and Lincoln-West.

 

My cousins' children attend

Glenville

Lincoln-West

CSA 2 kids are here

John Hay 4 kids are here

Kennedy (This kid takes the bus from Glenville to Kennedy daily so he can participate in the Marketing program)

The nerd school.  One kid is as at the downtown campus and 2 are at Nela Park

MLK my cousins are in Law and 2 of their kids attend this school

Jane Adams/TriC Design School (2 kids are here)

The Chef School (one kid is here)

One was at East High, but I forgot where the engineer program moved, I think John Hay.

 

There are so many kids I'm sure i'm missing some, but I believe there are plenty of options, in the CLE school district, if the kids and parents are committed to getting a solid education.

 

I didn't see this within the last few pages but it is from 2010. If anyone is bored or interested there's a nice breakdown of the transformation plan...

 

http://www.cmsdnet.net/AboutCMSD/~/media/Files/About/Transformation/Plan/2010_Mar_09%20CMSD_AcademicTransformationPlan_Updated.ashx

Choice matters, whether it's choosing where to shop, where to live, or where to send your kids to school.  no voucher, no choice, no incentive for schools to offer more.  While some students at the bottom might be hurt by the voucher system, what about all the kids it would help?  How many bright aspiring students are being held back by lack of choice for a better option than Cleveland public schools?

 

CMSD does need more options (as I mentioned above), but if/when these options become available, that does not mean that parents can simply drop their kids off at the door and expect a miracle based on being in a new or better school.  That's the problem here that is not being addressed.  You can shuffle kids around, parents can have more choices (including charters), but outcomes won't improve significantly until we find ways to get more parents to buy in to their child's education and to encourage them to achieve.

 

Options?  How many more "options" do they need?  The CSD has several innovative schools.  Many more than when my father attended Glenville or my cousins were at Glenville, JFK and Lincoln-West.

 

My cousins' children attend

Glenville

Lincoln-West

CSA 2 kids are here

John Hay 4 kids are here

Kennedy (This kid takes the bus from Glenville to Kennedy daily so he can participate in the Marketing program)

The nerd school.  One kid is as at the downtown campus and 2 are at Nela Park

MLK my cousins are in Law and 2 of their kids attend this school

Jane Adams/TriC Design School (2 kids are here)

The Chef School (one kid is here)

One was at East High, but I forgot where the engineer program moved, I think John Hay.

 

There are so many kids I'm sure i'm missing some, but I believe there are plenty of options, in the CLE school district, if the kids and parents are committed to getting a solid education.

 

I'm not going to say which one because I don't want to get in trouble, but I can tell you from first-hand experience and speaking with the staff that at least one of the schools that you listed has all but abandoned its "innovative" mission and has essentially gone back to being another dysfunctional neighborhood school.  My understanding, though I can't confirm this personally, is that several other "innovative" schools have met the same fate. 

 

A lot of families in CMSD seem to choose a high school because it's the closest one to their homes, not because of any special offerings.  If that's what they want to do, that's their choice, and as I said neighborhood schools should be available if that's what many parents want.  However I still think that CMSD's magnet program needs to be strengthened...and I also think that they need some "alternative" schools for the most troubled students. 

I believe you're correct, but the public school still ends up with less revenue to cover the same overhead.

 

One of my main problems with the Transformation Plan is that it's opening the door for charter schools to access local funding, not just state funding.  Once that door has opened, it's never going to shut.  And then you're really going to have an issue of public schools losing out on funding. 

One of my main problems with the Transformation Plan is that it's opening the door for charter schools to access local funding, not just state funding.  Once that door has opened, it's never going to shut.  And then you're really going to have an issue of public schools losing out on funding. 

That's bad news.

Choice matters, whether it's choosing where to shop, where to live, or where to send your kids to school.  no voucher, no choice, no incentive for schools to offer more.  While some students at the bottom might be hurt by the voucher system, what about all the kids it would help?  How many bright aspiring students are being held back by lack of choice for a better option than Cleveland public schools?

 

CMSD does need more options (as I mentioned above), but if/when these options become available, that does not mean that parents can simply drop their kids off at the door and expect a miracle based on being in a new or better school.  That's the problem here that is not being addressed.  You can shuffle kids around, parents can have more choices (including charters), but outcomes won't improve significantly until we find ways to get more parents to buy in to their child's education and to encourage them to achieve.

 

Options?  How many more "options" do they need?  The CSD has several innovative schools.  Many more than when my father attended Glenville or my cousins were at Glenville, JFK and Lincoln-West.

 

My cousins' children attend

Glenville

Lincoln-West

CSA 2 kids are here

John Hay 4 kids are here

Kennedy (This kid takes the bus from Glenville to Kennedy daily so he can participate in the Marketing program)

The nerd school.  One kid is as at the downtown campus and 2 are at Nela Park

MLK my cousins are in Law and 2 of their kids attend this school

Jane Adams/TriC Design School (2 kids are here)

The Chef School (one kid is here)

One was at East High, but I forgot where the engineer program moved, I think John Hay.

 

There are so many kids I'm sure i'm missing some, but I believe there are plenty of options, in the CLE school district, if the kids and parents are committed to getting a solid education.

 

I'm not going to say which one because I don't want to get in trouble, but I can tell you from first-hand experience and speaking with the staff that at least one of the schools that you listed has all but abandoned its "innovative" mission and has essentially gone back to being another dysfunctional neighborhood school.  My understanding, though I can't confirm this personally, is that several other "innovative" schools have met the same fate. 

 

A lot of families in CMSD seem to choose a high school because it's the closest one to their homes, not because of any special offerings.  If that's what they want to do, that's their choice, and as I said neighborhood schools should be available if that's what many parents want.  However I still think that CMSD's magnet program needs to be strengthened...and I also think that they need some "altrnative" schools for the most troubled students. 

Why not say what school?  "another" dysfunctional neighborhood school?  I think part of the problem with Cleveland schools is the perception, of Cleveland schools, that they are all bad, full of bad students or sub par to suburban schools.

Huh?  I'd say that *not* having a voucher system makes the level of education more wealth-based.  Ever hear the late Fannie Lewis on the subject?  The most leftist member of the Clevleand City Council in her day, and the voucher opponents were absolutely petrified to debate her.

 

Even the "West Wing" used the vouchers issue as one of their occasional efforts to provide balance by boosting a conservative viewpoint.

 

Look, no matter what system is used, the wealthiest 10-15% are always going to have the resources to buy their kids' way into a school that is segregated from the plebs.  That will never change and the distribution of vouchers to everyone regardless of means (which would be the absolute worst way to do it, IMO) would only serve to make the most expensive private schools even more expensive.  So any idea of passing out vouchers so CMSD families can attend Laurel or University School is just unrealistic.  Heck I'm pretty sure that even with Catholic schools like St. Ignatius and Benedictine, even though they take students using vouchers, the vouchers don't cover full tuition.

 

I'll say the same thing about vouchers that I said about charter schools.  If we have a robust public school system that includes plentiful magnet school choices (including ones that cater to high-achievers and ones that exist to work with the biggest problem students), there's no need for vouchers.  IMO, one of the public school system's biggest problems (and this is not just CMSD, but nationally) has been trying to shove too many kids into one-size-fits all comprehensive schools, particularly at the secondary level.  There is a place for neighborhood schools, especially for K-6 or K-8, but when kids get older their families need some educational options to help get them more on track for what comes after K-12.

 

What vouchers do is open up that second level of Catholic and other private schools.  Plus, with enough demand there will be options.  If this forces the public schools to compete, this improves them as well.

 

Then there's the behavior issue.  Simply separating the disruptors and the actual ignorance-missionaries from the kids who want to learn and achieve has its value.

"Ignorance-missionaries" is great and I plan on using it. 

 

But I don't get how demand has anything to do with this.  Competition can produce innovation but it can also produce corner-cutting, particularly where demand is static because the product is universally necessary.  Taking money out of the public schools cannot possibly help them.  That is explosively illogical.  Vouchers are a plan to destroy public schools forever.

What vouchers do is open up that second level of Catholic and other private schools.  Plus, with enough demand there will be options.  If this forces the public schools to compete, this improves them as well.

 

First off, if you push more money into the parochial school system, you don't think that this will raise tuition faster than might be expected?  Isn't the conservative argument with college costs essentially that the government's involvement has been a big reason why tuition has gone through the roof in the past few decades? (I actually tend to agree with this theory and I also believe the same would happen at parochial schools--the big losers being the middle class families not receiving the vouchers.)

 

Second, I don't know if the evidence points to "competition" being a legitimate solution to the problems in public education.  I know that the studies done on Milwaukee's voucher system have been inconclusive in regards to improving student outcomes and in motivating public schools to "compete." 

 

Also putting forth the very idea that competition is needed seems to indicate a belief that the vast majority of public schools aren't doing the best they can with the students they're given and that if only they'd work harder their students would magically start learning more.  It's nonsensical and that goes for merit pay and competition for teachers, too.  For many schools and teachers, simply working harder is not going to change much, if anything, in student achievement. 

 

The other thing that competition implies is that some level of experimentation is needed to see what works.  With that, it is also understood that some of the ideas, probably even many of the ideas that are tried, are not going to work and are going to fail the students.  Is that acceptable?

 

 

 

If we MUST have a voucher system, I believe that if parochial schools are going to take public money that they need to open their doors to a more diverse group of students (not just racially, but also economically and in terms of student ability and behavior).  Parochial schools receiving public money also need to be held accountable based on testing and ratings systems, since that is supposedly the gold-standard in measuring public schools.  And if a parochial school does not want to comply with these things, then they need to accept the fact that they won't be able to take students using vouchers.

Some national love.....

 

Black professionals honor Cleveland mayor

Published 6:38 a.m., Sunday, November 11, 2012

 

CLEVELAND (AP) — A group of black professionals has honored the Cleveland mayor, who is coming off a big election win for a tax increase meant to improve city schools.

 

Mayor Frank Jackson was recognized Saturday evening by the Black Professionals Association Charitable Foundation. The organization has awarded more than $3 million in scholarships since 1985.

 

The group says it honored Jackson for his leadership on behalf of city schools, which are controlled by a mayor-appointed board.

 

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Black-professionals-honor-Cleveland-mayor-4027612.php#ixzz2Bw2zoLex

"Ignorance-missionaries" is great and I plan on using it. 

 

A guy I used to work with reminded me a lot of Larry Fishburne’s role in “Boyz In the Hood”.  He was certainly no conservative and was to a degree into black identity.  But he had no patience for the stupidity of what he called “cooties” (he taught me that word lol), particularly what he called “dumb-ass on purpose”.  He didn’t have his own kids, but he was basically surrogate dad to his nephews.

 

I don’t think I ever saw him quite as pist off as one day after he dealt with the oldest one.  He got on his case about his grades and non-studying, and the kid told him that was “acting white”.  One of the many things he had to say to that was that if the Klan could pick only one idea to spread in the black community, that was the one they’d pick.

 

If we MUST have a voucher system, I believe that if parochial schools are going to take public money that they need to open their doors to a more diverse group of students (not just racially, but also economically and in terms of student ability and behavior).  Parochial schools receiving public money also need to be held accountable based on testing and ratings systems, since that is supposedly the gold-standard in measuring public schools.  And if a parochial school does not want to comply with these things, then they need to accept the fact that they won't be able to take students using vouchers.

 

With vouchers and scholarships, this issue takes care of itself.  Ability?  Why shouldn't the kids with the most be the ones taking advantage?    Behavior?  That completely defeats a major purpose of the private schools.

With vouchers and scholarships, this issue takes care of itself.  Ability?  Why shouldn't the kids with the most be the ones taking advantage?    Behavior?  That completely defeats a major purpose of the private schools.

 

The issue takes care of itself?  Huh?

 

Creating an expansion of vouchers that willfully allows schools to leave kids behind, now THAT defeats the purpose.  Right now urban districts like CMSD get raked over the coals because so many kids within its schools have learning disabilities or behavior problems and the districts struggle in educating these kids.  If private schools are going to get public money, then they need to join in and have a stake in improving overall educational outcomes.  That means being willing to take on a fair percentage of the most troubled students and working their "magic" on drastically improving their educational outcomes. 

 

If we just want to give hard-working and bright kids a chance to go to school in a more positive environment, and we're okay with many kids being left behind, then public  support for vouchers and charter schools are unnecessary.  A more widespread set of magnet school options within the public school system will more than do the trick, and do it without compromising the public aspect of public education.

Why should the public aspect of public education be so sacrosanct?  I'm willing to entertain magnet schools as an option, but many urban school districts have shown incredibly lukewarm support for those kinds of more customized options.  Private alternatives supported by vouchers could both directly offer alternatives that public school districts will not do so, and may also prompt public school districts to do it now.

 

The alternative is the status quo, which should be particularly objectionable to urbanists with anything resembling coherent and consistent principles.  School districts are one of the major reasons that educated, affluent families flee central cities right as they enter their peak earning years.  Territorial exclusivity means that the price of a good education, at least for those who cannot afford a quality residence downtown and private school for their children on top of that, includes moving to the suburbs and abandoning the city.  Limited exceptions may apply when a city has a few charter, magnet, or other alternative schools of its own; Columbus Alternative, for example, is an outstanding school, but it can accept nowhere near the number of students who apply, and admission is by lottery.  In Akron, we have the <a href="http://aechs.kk5.org/">Early College High School</a> offered by the university and the National Inventors Hall of Fame STEM Middle School, too, but they are just so small.  They have outstanding reputations locally and I certainly don't want to take anything away from them, but they are not up there with Walsh Jesuit, the Elms, etc.

 

Even my own urbanist leanings, however, are not so strong that I'll sacrifice my children to the public schools just to remain downtown.  When we have kids, that starts the countdown on our urban life, unless there are vouchers or some other mechanism to get my kids out of the public school at an acceptable cost.  The proper frame of reference for this discussion is not public schools refusing to leave students behind (many of whom are unsalvageable).  It is parents that cities should want to keep refusing to leave their own children behind, a.k.a. sending them to urban public schools.

Why should the public aspect of public education be so sacrosanct? 

 

Because profit motives have been shown to negatively impact critical services.  If tomorrow's schools must be private, would it be a dealbreaker if they were also non-profit?

Why should the public aspect of public education be so sacrosanct? 

 

Because profit motives have been shown to negatively impact critical services.  If tomorrow's schools must be private, would it be a dealbreaker if they were also non-profit?

 

How exactly have profit motives been shown the negatively impact critical services?  Competition and the risk of failure are the most consistently demonstrable productive incentives known.  Legally protected monopolies almost never have incentive to innovate.

 

Be that as it may, it would not be a dealbreaker for me if private schools were run by nonprofits.  That is a somewhat odd question to me, in fact: Two of the largest operators of high-achieving private schools in America today are universities and religious institutions--both nonprofit.

 

My preferred reform at the moment, however, would be to (i) privatize (whether to for-profit or nonprofit entities) all public schools; (ii) give all parents/guardians a universal voucher equal to the full statewide expenditures per pupil (which, as you noted earlier, is significantly larger than the vouchers currently offered by most voucher programs); and (iii) increase state-level taxes by the amount necessary to fund such vouchers universally.  Local governments could then offer supplemental vouchers supported by their own local property taxes, which could either to subsidize schools in their own districts if they wanted, or to subsidize the children of residents in their districts if they wanted to do it that way.

 

This would break down the territorial boundaries of exclusionary zoning without compelling most families seeking private education to also acquiesce to religious education, since just about the only space not crowded out by the public school monopoly is that of religious private schools at the moment.  (Hyper-elite schools like Hawken and University School are a smaller niche, in the aggregate.)  Under current voucher systems, I could live in Akron but would basically be compelled to send my children to Walsh Jesuit, Hoban, or the Elms.  Under a fully private system, jurisdictional boundaries would melt away and I could live downtown while sending my children to what is now (and would most likely still be) Copley-Fairlawn, Richfield, Green, Lake, or some other high-performing public school.

 

People fear disruptions, of course, but I think those fears are overblown for successful schools: the first thing that Copley would do after privatization would be to rehire close to 100% of its faculty and re-enroll a vast majority of its students, with the possible exception of some that might choose to go to neighboring districts like Revere.  Copley would almost certainly easily make up for that loss by bringing students out of Fairlawn Heights (which is a neighborhood of Akron, notwithstanding the name), and possibly a handful from Barberton, Medina, Richfield/Bath Township, etc.

 

In truth, I don't even think the disruptions would be that immediate for the underperforming urban schools.  Most parents would still choose to send their children to neighborhood schools.  We see this phenomenon even now with urban public schools with open enrollments; it's actually fairly likely that if parents make that choice with 15-20 options to choose from, they'll make it with 50+ options.

White Hat.

How exactly have profit motives been shown the negatively impact critical services?  Competition and the risk of failure are the most consistently demonstrable productive incentives known.  Legally protected monopolies almost never have incentive to innovate.

 

Be that as it may, it would not be a dealbreaker for me if private schools were run by nonprofits.  That is a somewhat odd question to me, in fact: Two of the largest operators of high-achieving private schools in America today are universities and religious institutions--both nonprofit.

 

My preferred reform at the moment, however, would be to (i) privatize (whether to for-profit or nonprofit entities) all public schools; (ii) give all parents/guardians a universal voucher equal to the full statewide expenditures per pupil (which, as you noted earlier, is significantly larger than the vouchers currently offered by most voucher programs); and (iii) increase state-level taxes by the amount necessary to fund such vouchers universally.  Local governments could then offer supplemental vouchers supported by their own local property taxes, which could either to subsidize schools in their own districts if they wanted, or to subsidize the children of residents in their districts if they wanted to do it that way.

 

This would break down the territorial boundaries of exclusionary zoning without compelling most families seeking private education to also acquiesce to religious education, since just about the only space not crowded out by the public school monopoly is that of religious private schools at the moment.  (Hyper-elite schools like Hawken and University School are a smaller niche, in the aggregate.)  Under current voucher systems, I could live in Akron but would basically be compelled to send my children to Walsh Jesuit, Hoban, or the Elms.  Under a fully private system, jurisdictional boundaries would melt away and I could live downtown while sending my children to what is now (and would most likely still be) Copley-Fairlawn, Richfield, Green, Lake, or some other high-performing public school.

 

People fear disruptions, of course, but I think those fears are overblown for successful schools: the first thing that Copley would do after privatization would be to rehire close to 100% of its faculty and re-enroll a vast majority of its students, with the possible exception of some that might choose to go to neighboring districts like Revere.  Copley would almost certainly easily make up for that loss by bringing students out of Fairlawn Heights (which is a neighborhood of Akron, notwithstanding the name), and possibly a handful from Barberton, Medina, Richfield/Bath Township, etc.

 

In truth, I don't even think the disruptions would be that immediate for the underperforming urban schools.  Most parents would still choose to send their children to neighborhood schools.  We see this phenomenon even now with urban public schools with open enrollments; it's actually fairly likely that if parents make that choice with 15-20 options to choose from, they'll make it with 50+ options.

 

Your idea doesn't sound terrible, but I do see some potential issues.  First off, it costs significantly more to educate special needs students than regular students, so I'm curious as to where they fit into the equation?  Second, I wonder if parents will either have enough knowledge--or the will--to make the type of decision that you would like (or assume) they would make.  What I mean (and you rightly acknowledge) is that parents will often choose schools that are close to their residence, or are perceived to be safer, or have a certain philosophy, even if those schools are failures.  So undoubtedly quite a few "failing" schools will be propped up by choice and vouchers because parents don't know or don't care to look for options where the test-based measurement indicates "excellence" (which is unfortunately all anyone seems to care about these days).

 

Beyond the non-profit question that another poster raised, I'm just not sure "competition" works as well as you're implying in education.  A lot of what constitutes an urban school's grade or ranking is based upon things that are well beyond its control.  There aren't many, if any, best practices occurring in Solon that will magically turn Collinwood into a stellar high school. I just don't know what competitive practices a school like that can implement that will make any kind of a difference.  It's similar to someone wondering what the Akron Aeros can do to "compete" with the San Francisco Giants.  You can bring in Joe Torre and his staff and they can bring along their system, but short of turning over the entire roster (from AA quality to high caliber MLB talent), not much will change.

 

And considering this from the urbanist angle, what I think it really comes down to is giving these people and other middle class families options that allow them to isolate their kids from the kids whose parents are either too busy or don't care enough to ensure that their child's education is a priority.  To many of these middle class families, I don't think it matters what the option is, as long as there is access to a segregated (not necessarily racially segregated) educational option.  I think that that is something that CMSD needs to accept, even if they did not have the stomach for it previously.

How exactly have profit motives been shown the negatively impact critical services?  Competition and the risk of failure are the most consistently demonstrable productive incentives known.  Legally protected monopolies almost never have incentive to innovate.

 

Be that as it may, it would not be a dealbreaker for me if private schools were run by nonprofits.  That is a somewhat odd question to me, in fact: Two of the largest operators of high-achieving private schools in America today are universities and religious institutions--both nonprofit.

 

My preferred reform at the moment, however, would be to (i) privatize (whether to for-profit or nonprofit entities) all public schools; (ii) give all parents/guardians a universal voucher equal to the full statewide expenditures per pupil (which, as you noted earlier, is significantly larger than the vouchers currently offered by most voucher programs); and (iii) increase state-level taxes by the amount necessary to fund such vouchers universally.  Local governments could then offer supplemental vouchers supported by their own local property taxes, which could either to subsidize schools in their own districts if they wanted, or to subsidize the children of residents in their districts if they wanted to do it that way.

 

This would break down the territorial boundaries of exclusionary zoning without compelling most families seeking private education to also acquiesce to religious education, since just about the only space not crowded out by the public school monopoly is that of religious private schools at the moment.  (Hyper-elite schools like Hawken and University School are a smaller niche, in the aggregate.)  Under current voucher systems, I could live in Akron but would basically be compelled to send my children to Walsh Jesuit, Hoban, or the Elms.  Under a fully private system, jurisdictional boundaries would melt away and I could live downtown while sending my children to what is now (and would most likely still be) Copley-Fairlawn, Richfield, Green, Lake, or some other high-performing public school.

 

People fear disruptions, of course, but I think those fears are overblown for successful schools: the first thing that Copley would do after privatization would be to rehire close to 100% of its faculty and re-enroll a vast majority of its students, with the possible exception of some that might choose to go to neighboring districts like Revere.  Copley would almost certainly easily make up for that loss by bringing students out of Fairlawn Heights (which is a neighborhood of Akron, notwithstanding the name), and possibly a handful from Barberton, Medina, Richfield/Bath Township, etc.

 

In truth, I don't even think the disruptions would be that immediate for the underperforming urban schools.  Most parents would still choose to send their children to neighborhood schools.  We see this phenomenon even now with urban public schools with open enrollments; it's actually fairly likely that if parents make that choice with 15-20 options to choose from, they'll make it with 50+ options.

 

Your idea doesn't sound terrible, but I do see some potential issues.  First off, it costs significantly more to educate special needs students than regular students, so I'm curious as to where they fit into the equation?

 

If states (or the federal government) chose to give supplemental vouchers for special needs students, it would not break the model, but nor would it break the model if they did not give such additional money.  The funding mandates for special-needs education could be (and perhaps should be) the subject of a separate thread in and of themselves.  The principles of competition and non-exclusive jurisdiction are orthogonal to that debate, however.

 

Second, I wonder if parents will either have enough knowledge--or the will--to make the type of decision that you would like (or assume) they would make.  What I mean (and you rightly acknowledge) is that parents will often choose schools that are close to their residence, or are perceived to be safer, or have a certain philosophy, even if those schools are failures.  So undoubtedly quite a few "failing" schools will be propped up by choice and vouchers because parents don't know or don't care to look for options where the test-based measurement indicates "excellence" (which is unfortunately all anyone seems to care about these days).

 

This will inevitably be a measure of this.  There are certainly plenty of parents out there that do not take their responsibilities as parents seriously.  My counter to this, however, is that this is exactly what we have with the status quo, so this point cannot be used to defend the status quo.  At least with a full-cost-voucher system, it would be *possible* for parents living in the city to send their children somewhere other than failing urban public schools.  Not all would.  But the only ones who can do so and actually do so today are the urban financial elite, rare outside the coastal cities, that have the money for both urban living in exclusive urban neighborhoods and private school tuition on top of that.  That demographic (a) is too small to build an urban renaissance around and (b) is going to be just fine under most conceivable systems.

 

Beyond the non-profit question that another poster raised, I'm just not sure "competition" works as well as you're implying in education.  A lot of what constitutes an urban school's grade or ranking is based upon things that are well beyond its control.  There aren't many, if any, best practices occurring in Solon that will magically turn Collinwood into a stellar high school. I just don't know what competitive practices a school like that can implement that will make any kind of a difference.  It's similar to someone wondering what the Akron Aeros can do to "compete" with the San Francisco Giants.  You can bring in Joe Torre and his staff and they can bring along their system, but short of turning over the entire roster (from AA quality to high caliber MLB talent), not much will change.

 

I understand where you're trying to go with that analogy, but I don't think it's a complete match.  There are examples out there of successful urban private/charter/magnet schools that succeed against their local public school competition by leaps and bounds.  Some even consistently succeed, or at least compete, against much wealthier private high schools with far more privileged demographics (the SF Giants, in your analogy).

 

Still, while I would love to see this happen, the standard for success cannot be based around an expectation that we can turn Akron Buchtel into Shaker Heights or Solon.

 

And considering this from the urbanist angle, what I think it really comes down to is giving these people and other middle class families options that allow them to isolate their kids from the kids whose parents are either too busy or don't care enough to ensure that their child's education is a priority.  To many of these middle class families, I don't think it matters what the option is, as long as there is access to a segregated (not necessarily racially segregated) educational option.  I think that that is something that CMSD needs to accept, even if they did not have the stomach for it previously.

 

Part of my support for privatization is admittedly based on giving up on government-run school districts ever developing the stomach (i.e., political will) to accept that.

“And considering this from the urbanist angle, what I think it really comes down to is giving these people and other middle class families options that allow them to isolate their kids from the kids whose parents are either too busy or don't care enough to ensure that their child's education is a priority.  To many of these middle class families, I don't think it matters what the option is, as long as there is access to a segregated (not necessarily racially segregated) educational option.  I think that that is something that CMSD needs to accept, even if they did not have the stomach for it previously.”

 

Yes, absolutely.  If you want people like that to live in your city, you need to do that.  If you want a great city, you want people like that.

 

It seems like New York City manages to do this.  I’m not completely sure if that’s true or if they are unique, but how?  I understand how they got over one major obstacle:  they’ve managed to elect two consecutive authoritarian mayors.  But it seems the system predates them.

 

The problem would be you’d run into severe opposition from what way too many people consider to be “black leadership”, because those schools would end up disproportionately white and Asian (Asian includes Indian and Middle Eastern).  They would also have the highest test scores and the lowest incidence rates of crimes and problems.  The way a lot of black “leaders” would respond would be predictable and stereotypical:  son of Reed v. Rhodes.  They’d rather attack the symptoms, the lack of equality of results, than the root cause.  Since that root cause keeps a lot of them ungainfully employed, they’re not going there.

 

Alternative leadership is needed so that black Americans can join those of us who don’t have ethnic group “leaders” in anything but the narrowest cultural sense.  I’m not sure who it is.  Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas, Allen West et al have disengaged from the nonsense, so they probably lack the community creds.  Jesse Jackson tried to make a start, but he jumped to join the likes of Sharpton on the team I mentioned earlier.  Barack Obama was always on that team.

 

Back when I knew Jeff Johnson, I thought he might be one of those leaders.  That’s why George Forbes threw a chair at him lol.  I’m not sure how much the events of his life have changed him

I understand where you're trying to go with that analogy, but I don't think it's a complete match.  There are examples out there of successful urban private/charter/magnet schools that succeed against their local public school competition by leaps and bounds.  Some even consistently succeed, or at least compete, against much wealthier private high schools with far more privileged demographics (the SF Giants, in your analogy).

 

The analogy isn't perfect, but I do think it cuts to the core of the debate here.  Due to their nature (and usually by design), most private/charter/magnet schools are not dealing with anywhere near the same student demographic as their local public school "competition."  Therefore I'm not at all shocked that with different inputs, their outputs also tend to be vastly different.  Many people who favor charters or vouchers approach this discussion with the idea that these innovations will solve all of the system's problems and that with implementation of choice and competition, every child (or a significantly greater proportion than we have now) will become proficient (or whatever the day's catchphrase for educational adequacy may be).  I think that that type of thinking is very mistaken and even dangerous in some ways.  The point of view you seem to have is one that I don't hear often (but is more realistic) in that you apparently just want to create more options for those that want to take advantage of them, conceding that some families and students may choose not to do so.

I understand where you're trying to go with that analogy, but I don't think it's a complete match.  There are examples out there of successful urban private/charter/magnet schools that succeed against their local public school competition by leaps and bounds.  Some even consistently succeed, or at least compete, against much wealthier private high schools with far more privileged demographics (the SF Giants, in your analogy).

 

The analogy isn't perfect, but I do think it cuts to the core of the debate here.  Due to their nature (and usually by design), most private/charter/magnet schools are not dealing with anywhere near the same student demographic as their local public school "competition."  Therefore I'm not at all shocked that with different inputs, their outputs also tend to be vastly different.  Many people who favor charters or vouchers approach this discussion with the idea that these innovations will solve all of the system's problems and that with implementation of choice and competition, every child (or a significantly greater proportion than we have now) will become proficient (or whatever the day's catchphrase for educational adequacy may be).  I think that that type of thinking is very mistaken and even dangerous in some ways.  The point of view you seem to have is one that I don't hear often (but is more realistic) in that you apparently just want to create more options for those that want to take advantage of them, conceding that some families and students may choose not to do so.

 

Expecting the same output isn't realistic.  Neither is expecting the same output as Avon despite the latter spending much less per student.  I doubt anyone is saying that.

 

The successful schools will need to be somewhat selective though, using objective rather than politically expedient principals.  Some kids aren't going to make it, and may not be fixable beyond age 14 or so without taking up a disproportionate amount of time and resources.

 

It's been said that Nazi Germany lost any chance at World War II by chasing out approximately a dozen geniuses.  I would say that not educating them effectively is similar.

I understand where you're trying to go with that analogy, but I don't think it's a complete match.  There are examples out there of successful urban private/charter/magnet schools that succeed against their local public school competition by leaps and bounds.  Some even consistently succeed, or at least compete, against much wealthier private high schools with far more privileged demographics (the SF Giants, in your analogy).

 

The analogy isn't perfect, but I do think it cuts to the core of the debate here.  Due to their nature (and usually by design), most private/charter/magnet schools are not dealing with anywhere near the same student demographic as their local public school "competition."  Therefore I'm not at all shocked that with different inputs, their outputs also tend to be vastly different.  Many people who favor charters or vouchers approach this discussion with the idea that these innovations will solve all of the system's problems and that with implementation of choice and competition, every child (or a significantly greater proportion than we have now) will become proficient (or whatever the day's catchphrase for educational adequacy may be).  I think that that type of thinking is very mistaken and even dangerous in some ways.  The point of view you seem to have is one that I don't hear often (but is more realistic) in that you apparently just want to create more options for those that want to take advantage of them, conceding that some families and students may choose not to do so.

 

However, even in schools where the inputs are largely the same, or at least as much of a controlled experiment as we can reasonably expect in a real world case study (e.g., D.C.'s popular voucher program, which was reinstituted after the Obama administration tried to cancel it), the schools in a competitive environment do perform better.  As I said above, they may not suddenly turn into Solon or Shaker Heights (or University School or Hathaway Brown), but that cannot be the appropriate standard.  The standard has to be improvement upon the status quo.

 

I don't know if I would go so far as to call the unrealistic notion that privatization would achieve universal proficiency dangerous, but I do agree that the perfect can become the enemy of the good.  However, I think that public schools (and the governments that control them) are more prone to fall prey to that than private schools would, because they are more insulated from economic realities that can force people to make hard (but productive) decisions.